mouse_move

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail — the top-left origin coordinate convention — which prevents a common coordinate-system error. However, it does not disclose whether movement is instant or animated, whether accessibility permissions are required (relevant given the accessibility_* and animation_* siblings), or what happens with out-of-bounds coordinates.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences totaling roughly 18 words, with zero wasted content. The action sentence comes first, followed by the coordinate convention. It does not redundantly restate parameter names or schema details, and every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and the most critical contextual fact (coordinate origin). The main gaps — usage routing versus mouse_drag and permission requirements — are real but minor given the tool's low complexity; an agent can make a correct call from this description plus the fully documented schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both x and y are already documented as pixel offsets from left and top respectively. The description's top-left origin note slightly reinforces this but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents both parameters fully.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (move), resource (mouse cursor), and target (screen coordinates x, y), which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools: mouse_click, mouse_drag, mouse_scroll, and the read-only mouse_position. An agent can identify what this tool does without inspecting its schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use mouse_move versus alternatives. There is no mention of when mouse_drag may be the better choice (press-drag-release), when mouse_position is needed for reading current coordinates, or any conditions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.